His words appear to be very measured and balanced. Certainly his remarks about the undesirability of lobbies strikes a cord as does his clear distinction between an orientation and sexual acts.

While finding Latin teaching erroneous in a number of areas gone over many times, I am cautious always of media commentaries and reports and especially when it comes to religious matters and communities. But no doubt someone will take issue with anything he says or does, whether or not such criticism is accurate or fair.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

Who you are sexually attracted to isn't a sin, but acting on such attraction is.

Being inclined to being addicted to alcohol and drunkenness isn't asin, but actually giving in and getting drunk is a sin.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

but then, according to the same mythology-not using the word pejoratively- life itself as we know it, is quite a transgrssion from God's original plan.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin.

So is autism a sin? Or those born blind?What about someone born with a predisposition to addiction?

No, those are not sins. Neither is being homosexual. But acting upon your fallen state is a sin. If you are attracted to the same sex and commit sexual acts, you're falling to sin. If you are predisposed to alcohol addiction and get drunk, you are committing a sin.

Being homosexual is as much of a sin as being heterosexual. It's not. But acting upon those feelings is what is sinful.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

but then, according to the same mythology-not using the word pejoratively- life itself as we know it, is quite a transgrssion from God's original plan.

It seems as though Alpo's view of our fallen nature is more like an Augustinian/Latin view of sin and fallenness, rather than the Orthodox view.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

but then, according to the same mythology-not using the word pejoratively- life itself as we know it, is quite a transgrssion from God's original plan.

It seems as though Alpo's view of our fallen nature is more like an Augustinian/Latin view of sin and fallenness, rather than the Orthodox view.

don't flatter me to that extent. i haven't come up yet with a widely known and accepted view on the fallen nature. i'm working on it though, although i'm most skeptical about 'nature".

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

but then, according to the same mythology-not using the word pejoratively- life itself as we know it, is quite a transgrssion from God's original plan.

Pretty much. I don't have any carefully elaborated theory on this but you're probably aware of the fact that historically Christianity has had fairly grim view of most of this-worldy things.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin. But on the other hand we have loads of EOs who claim that the original sin is not sin either.

but then, according to the same mythology-not using the word pejoratively- life itself as we know it, is quite a transgrssion from God's original plan.

It seems as though Alpo's view of our fallen nature is more like an Augustinian/Latin view of sin and fallenness, rather than the Orthodox view.

Here we go again. I don't buy that dichotomy. In fact, I'm not exactly convinced there is any dichotomy at all.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin.

So is autism a sin? Or those born blind?What about someone born with a predisposition to addiction?

No, those are not sins.

Yes, they are. That's basic Orthodox theology: the fallen state of the world, including death, disease and decay, "misses the mark" from God's original plan for the cosmos and is therefore sinful.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin.

So is autism a sin? Or those born blind?What about someone born with a predisposition to addiction?

No, those are not sins.

Yes, they are. That's basic Orthodox theology: the fallen state of the world, including death, disease and decay, "misses the mark" from God's original plan for the cosmos and is therefore sinful.

What do you think gives you the right to tell us Orthodox what we believe? We know better than you do.

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin.

So is autism a sin? Or those born blind?What about someone born with a predisposition to addiction?

No, those are not sins.

Yes, they are. That's basic Orthodox theology: the fallen state of the world, including death, disease and decay, "misses the mark" from God's original plan for the cosmos and is therefore sinful.

What do you think gives you the right to tell us Orthodox what we believe? We know better than you do.

Like half of your posts on this forum are telling Orthodox people they aren't Orthodox over nothing. If you're going to be like that, the least you could do is know your own church's theology.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I don't follow that logic. Legal transgressions have nothing to do with cause and effect relationships.

You and sheen keep saying disease is not sinful since you don't confess it. Sin is not something you always confess - you don't confess original sin, either.

Sin is more than just personal wrongs we are guilty of. That's how St. John of Shanghai could both say that Mary is sinful yet she is a stranger to any fall into sin.

I thought the Orthodox don't believe in original sin, so why would we confess it?

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

I disagree with His Holiness. GBLT people are not personally guilty of their orientation. However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God. I agree though that Christians should be more kind to gays.

so does death, according to the same account; so, are you gonna say that homosexuality is a sin in the same way as death is ?!

Kind of. The idea that homosexuality is not a sin seems to imply a bit superficial idea of sin.

So is autism a sin? Or those born blind?What about someone born with a predisposition to addiction?

No, those are not sins.

Yes, they are. That's basic Orthodox theology: the fallen state of the world, including death, disease and decay, "misses the mark" from God's original plan for the cosmos and is therefore sinful.

What do you think gives you the right to tell us Orthodox what we believe? We know better than you do.

Like half of your posts on this forum are telling Orthodox people they aren't Orthodox over nothing. If you're going to be like that, the least you could do is know your own church's theology.

I do know it quite well in fact. Every Priest I know currently would agree with me, maybe except one. Yet I don't know any who would agree with you.

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

More properly: ancestral curse

What you suggest we believe is absolutely wrong. For example, babies who die before baptism are still given funerals and are recognized as being in God's kingdom. They inherit the fallen nature, the curse of the tendency to sin. But they don't have any sins and aren't guilty of anyone else's sins.

You are so wrong about us William, you should stop now an let us speak for ourselves instead of trying to speak on our behalf.

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

More properly: ancestral curse

What you suggest we believe is absolutely wrong. For example, babies who die before baptism are still given funerals and are recognized as being in God's kingdom. They inherit the fallen nature, the curse of the tendency to sin. But they don't have any sins and aren't guilty of anyone else's sins.

You are so wrong about us William, you should stop now an let us speak for ourselves instead of trying to speak on our behalf.

"And if we have in any way sinned against You, be merciful to them and to us; for no man is free of stain in Your sight though he live but a day." - Pentecost Kneeling Vespers

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

On gays the pope basically reiterated Catholic teaching, but without stressing that homosexual activity is indeed gravely sinful - a very anti-pastoral thing to do. He should have known the headlines that would arise.

The big issue is that the Pope said the commision of cardinals, who are supposed to be discussing reform of the Roman Curia - you know, the one which is full of active homosexuals and has a money laundering bank, the curia that chief exorcist of Rome Fr Gabriel Amorth said has members who are practicing satanists and masons... the commision that should be talking about reforming that is instead discussing giving Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. By traditional Roman Catholic standards, its insanity.

Well, since good old traditional William is arguing for true Orthodoxy against the liberaldox modernists, I'm going to take his side and throw something else controversial into the mix: the Orthodox Church always has & still does condemn birth control except in the case of health. You'd be hard pressed to find a Church Father who didn't disapprove of it. Anyone who says differently is a mislead liberaldox.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

More properly: ancestral curse

What you suggest we believe is absolutely wrong. For example, babies who die before baptism are still given funerals and are recognized as being in God's kingdom. They inherit the fallen nature, the curse of the tendency to sin. But they don't have any sins and aren't guilty of anyone else's sins.

You are so wrong about us William, you should stop now an let us speak for ourselves instead of trying to speak on our behalf.

"And if we have in any way sinned against You, be merciful to them and to us; for no man is free of stain in Your sight though he live but a day." - Pentecost Kneeling Vespers

Good job taking one quote from a prayer out of context. Sounds like something Protestants tend to do a lot of.

Just quit trying to tell us what we believe, you aren't in the Church and have no right to tell us what we believe.

I don't understand how Orthodox people don't know the Orthodox view of sin. I know orthonorm has run into this problem on this forum before too.

Ahh, yes. You and Orthonorm can lecture our priests and bishops on the true meaning of sin.

The fact is that, despite lots of philosophical wrangling, the Church has always treated "sin" as acts, as well. It's not entirely some philosophical construct of ontological being. That's why, as others have said, we confess individual sins, not just our sinful being.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

More properly: ancestral curse

What you suggest we believe is absolutely wrong. For example, babies who die before baptism are still given funerals and are recognized as being in God's kingdom. They inherit the fallen nature, the curse of the tendency to sin. But they don't have any sins and aren't guilty of anyone else's sins.

You are so wrong about us William, you should stop now an let us speak for ourselves instead of trying to speak on our behalf.

"And if we have in any way sinned against You, be merciful to them and to us; for no man is free of stain in Your sight though he live but a day." - Pentecost Kneeling Vespers

Good job taking one quote from a prayer out of context. Sounds like something Protestants tend to do a lot of.

Just quit trying to tell us what we believe, you aren't in the Church and have no right to tell us what we believe.

I don't understand how Orthodox people don't know the Orthodox view of sin. I know orthonorm has run into this problem on this forum before too.

Ahh, yes. You and Orthonorm can lecture our priests and bishops on the true meaning of sin.

The fact is that, despite lots of philosophical wrangling, the Church has always treated "sin" as acts, as well. It's not entirely some philosophical construct of ontological being. That's why, as others have said, we confess individual sins, not just our sinful being.

Which is exactly what I said.

By the way, Devin and Trisagion aren't priests or bishops. But the person I learned this idea from (Fr. Hopko) is.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

I don't understand how Orthodox people don't know the Orthodox view of sin. I know orthonorm has run into this problem on this forum before too.

Ahh, yes. You and Orthonorm can lecture our priests and bishops on the true meaning of sin.

The fact is that, despite lots of philosophical wrangling, the Church has always treated "sin" as acts, as well. It's not entirely some philosophical construct of ontological being. That's why, as others have said, we confess individual sins, not just our sinful being.

Which is exactly what I said.

By the way, Devin and Trisagion aren't priests or bishops. But the person I learned this idea from (Fr. Hopko) is.

I listen to Fr Hopko all the time and he has never taught what you say. Nether do any Priests I know. So just shut up and let us speak for ourselves, don't be an arrogant jerk and think you are somehow wiser to Orthodoxy. Just shut your mouth and let us speak for ourselves.

I don't understand how Orthodox people don't know the Orthodox view of sin. I know orthonorm has run into this problem on this forum before too.

Ahh, yes. You and Orthonorm can lecture our priests and bishops on the true meaning of sin.

The fact is that, despite lots of philosophical wrangling, the Church has always treated "sin" as acts, as well. It's not entirely some philosophical construct of ontological being. That's why, as others have said, we confess individual sins, not just our sinful being.

Which is exactly what I said.

By the way, Devin and Trisagion aren't priests or bishops. But the person I learned this idea from (Fr. Hopko) is.

I listen to Fr Hopko all the time and he has never taught what you say. Nether do any Priests I know. So just shut up and let us speak for ourselves, don't be an arrogant jerk and think you are somehow wiser to Orthodoxy. Just shut your mouth and let us speak for ourselves.

I posted an article on the previous page of this thread where Fr. Hopko mentions that sickness is bondage to sin and the devil.

I don't think I am "wiser to [sic] Orthodoxy." According to people like Fr. Hopko, I am agreeing with Orthodox teaching.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 05:19:52 PM by William »

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

The Orthodox Church has ALWAYS believed in Original Sin, or "ancestral" sin, as some theologians call it. The only difference is that we do not understand it in quite the same way as the West, mostly due to our different soteriology. The West generally views Original Sin in the sense that we inherit guilt for Adam's transgression and thus are guilty and subject to the punishment of death in God's eyes, whereas in the East, it is understand more so in the sense that we are sick and inherited the consequence of Adam's transgression--which was death--but are innocent of the guilt, as people are only guilty of individual sins.

I don't understand how Orthodox people don't know the Orthodox view of sin. I know orthonorm has run into this problem on this forum before too.

Ahh, yes. You and Orthonorm can lecture our priests and bishops on the true meaning of sin.

The fact is that, despite lots of philosophical wrangling, the Church has always treated "sin" as acts, as well. It's not entirely some philosophical construct of ontological being. That's why, as others have said, we confess individual sins, not just our sinful being.

Which is exactly what I said.

By the way, Devin and Trisagion aren't priests or bishops. But the person I learned this idea from (Fr. Hopko) is.

I listen to Fr Hopko all the time and he has never taught what you say. Nether do any Priests I know. So just shut up and let us speak for ourselves, don't be an arrogant jerk and think you are somehow wiser to Orthodoxy. Just shut your mouth and let us speak for ourselves.

I posted an article on the previous page of this thread where Fr. Hopko mentions that sickness is bondage to sin and the devil.

I don't think I am "wiser to [sic] Orthodoxy." According to people like Fr. Hopko, I am agreeing with Orthodox teaching.

That statement doesn't mean what you think it means. Your interpretation as a heterodox is subject to error, and you can't even understand what Fr Hopko or any teacher says, regardless of how many times you read them.

Like I said, you are wrong here and you should shut up and stop telling us what we believe.

Why does Scripture say if we confess our sins He is faith and just to forgive us our sins. But now it sounds as if you are saying we don't need to confess ALL sins. How do we know which ones to confess and which ones we don't have to?

You confess personal sins.

More properly: ancestral curse

What you suggest we believe is absolutely wrong. For example, babies who die before baptism are still given funerals and are recognized as being in God's kingdom. They inherit the fallen nature, the curse of the tendency to sin. But they don't have any sins and aren't guilty of anyone else's sins.

You are so wrong about us William, you should stop now an let us speak for ourselves instead of trying to speak on our behalf.

"And if we have in any way sinned against You, be merciful to them and to us; for no man is free of stain in Your sight though he live but a day." - Pentecost Kneeling Vespers

Good job taking one quote from a prayer out of context. Sounds like something Protestants tend to do a lot of.

Just quit trying to tell us what we believe, you aren't in the Church and have no right to tell us what we believe.

"For in thy sight there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I now observe what I no longer remember of myself? In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry--not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition--I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked. As we grow we root out and cast away from us such childish habits. Yet I have not seen anyone who is wise who cast away the good when trying to purge the bad. Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older--not slaves, either, but free--and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant’s innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.

Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult." - St. Augustine, Confessions

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

By the way, Devin and Trisagion aren't priests or bishops. But the person I learned this idea from (Fr. Hopko) is.

No, but all of my priests and bishops have been priests and bishops, and they don't teach that sin does not refer to acts as well.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

That statement doesn't mean what you think it means. Your interpretation as a heterodox is subject to error, and you can't even understand what Fr Hopko or any teacher says, regardless of how many times you read them.

Like I said, you are wrong here and you should shut up and stop telling us what we believe.

JamesR is baptized and agrees with me. Does he get the magic decoder ring to understand what Fr. Hopko says?

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

"For in thy sight there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I now observe what I no longer remember of myself? In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry--not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition--I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked. As we grow we root out and cast away from us such childish habits. Yet I have not seen anyone who is wise who cast away the good when trying to purge the bad. Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older--not slaves, either, but free--and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant’s innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.

Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult." - St. Augustine, Confessions

Shhhh

You'll shatter the Ameridox notion that Western Saints aren't really Saints and that their theology must be discredited even though St. Augustine was Canonized a Saint in the 3rd Ecumenical Council and declared a doctor of the Church in the 5th

Well, since good old traditional William is arguing for true Orthodoxy against the liberaldox modernists, I'm going to take his side and throw something else controversial into the mix: the Orthodox Church always has & still does condemn birth control except in the case of health. You'd be hard pressed to find a Church Father who didn't disapprove of it. Anyone who says differently is a mislead liberaldox.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

No, but all of my priests and bishops have been priests and bishops, and they don't teach that sin does not refer to acts as well.

I didn't say that sin does not refer to acts. I said that it refers to both acts and aspects of our sinful condition like a tendency to temptation, death and sickness.

Then we must cease our bickering immediately, as we agree!

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

Well, since good old traditional William is arguing for true Orthodoxy against the liberaldox modernists, I'm going to take his side and throw something else controversial into the mix: the Orthodox Church always has & still does condemn birth control except in the case of health. You'd be hard pressed to find a Church Father who didn't disapprove of it. Anyone who says differently is a mislead liberaldox.

Of course no Church Father who spoke against contraception made an exception "in the case of health," none that I've seen anyway, but hey, I like you catching this as much as the next guy. If I can't corner James to admit that he pulled that claim out of thin air, at least I'll support you guys in calling him on contradicting himself.

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

"For in thy sight there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I now observe what I no longer remember of myself? In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry--not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition--I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked. As we grow we root out and cast away from us such childish habits. Yet I have not seen anyone who is wise who cast away the good when trying to purge the bad. Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older--not slaves, either, but free--and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant’s innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.

Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult." - St. Augustine, Confessions

Shhhh

You'll shatter the Ameridox notion that Western Saints aren't really Saints and that their theology must be discredited even though St. Augustine was Canonized a Saint in the 3rd Ecumenical Council and declared a doctor of the Church in the 5th

Hmm... Maybe it's the proven fact that St Augustine was wrong on sin and human nature? Saints make mistakes and errors to, he's a Saint, but his theological error eventually led to the decline of Rome into heresy.

Who are you? Oh, I don't know........something like the Vicar of Christ on earth?

And I love the way he uses the PC term for "gay" for homosexuals.

This guy is way too wishy-washy for me, just another closet Cultural Marxist from the Jesuit school.

I see the Church reverting back to the good ol PJII days except even worse with some sort of cultural ecumenism or something with this pope going way out of his way to appear "humble" and charitable to sexual deviants of every stripe.

BIBLE- "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7:24

You're welcome, sir.

BIBLE- "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

Bible-LEVITICUS 20:13

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood*shall be*upon them.

Now I'm not one to ignore the OT, but, I think you are a bit guilty here of cherry-picking Scriptures like the Protestants do. The Pentateuch also has a law against mixing two different colored threads together to make a garment and says not to eat pork, yet, most of us will violate those rules several times in our life.

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

I don't even know how to respond to such an idiotic statment lke that.

Except to just not engage in a fool's folly.

So now Benedict's personally responsible for the spread of veneral diseases on the Dark Continent.

Hey James, how bout this, maybe the Vatican created HIV to begin with? Yea that's it, those nasty ol papists in conjunction with the CIA genetically engineered the virus and let it loose on all those poor unsuspecting black folks under a global diabolical threat to eradicate them from the planet.

BIBLE- "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7:24

You're welcome, sir.

BIBLE- "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

Bible-LEVITICUS 20:13

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood*shall be*upon them.

Now I'm not one to ignore the OT, but, I think you are a bit guilty here of cherry-picking Scriptures like the Protestants do. The Pentateuch also has a law against mixing two different colored threads together to make a garment and says not to eat pork, yet, most of us will violate those rules several times in our life.

I don't know what quote you're talking about as far as the two different colored threads go, I'd have to know the context, not that it's relevant to Yawheh declaring that two dudes shouldn't bed down together or else.

And, scripture is right about not dining on the swine, not much good comes from that.

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

I don't even know how to respond to such an idiotic statment lke that.

Except to just not engage in a fool's folly.

So now Benedict's personally responsible for the spread of veneral diseases on the Dark Continent.

Hey James, how bout this, maybe the Vatican created HIV to begin with? Yea that's it, those nasty ol papists in conjunction with the CIA genetically engineered the virus and let it loose on all those poor unsuspecting black folks under a global diabolical threat to eradicate them from the planet.

It's a hilarious, and sad charge, considering his own supposed church (the Orthodox Church) rejects contraception, and so in his mind, we are also responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

I would have to disagree that homosexual attraction or orientation is not a sin but homosexual behavior is a sin. St Paul tells us in Romans 1 that homosexuality is against nature and by default an act of lawlessness.

St John Chrysostom says "For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Now when he was discoursing of their doctrines, he put before them the world and man’s understanding, telling them that, by the judgment afforded them by God, they might through the things which are seen, have been led as by the hand to the Creator, and then, by not willing to do so, they remained inexcusable....Which is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another. And reflect too how significantly he uses his words. For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, “they burned in their lust one toward another.” You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endureth not to abide within its proper limits. For everything which transgresseth the laws by God appointed, lusteth after monstrous things and not those which be customary. For as many oftentimes having left the desire of food get to feed upon earth and small stones, and others being possessed by excessive thirst often long even for mire, thus these also ran into this ebullition of lawless love....And he called it not lust, but that which is unseemly, and that properly. For they both dishonored nature, and trampled on the laws. And see the great confusion which fell out on both sides. For not only was the head turned downwards but the feet too were upwards, and they became enemies to themselves and to one another, bringing in a pernicious kind of strife, and one even more lawless than any civil war, and one rife in divisions, and of varied form." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.vi.html

St John called homosexuality more lawless than civil war. Any desire that is against nature is sin. St John uses the example of abandoning food to eat stones and abandoning water to drink swamp. It is not merely an aberration but sin itself because it is enmity with God's plan and goodness.

Another example is Christ's teaching on adultery. We all know adultery is a behavior that is a sin. In Matthew 5:28, Christ tells us that not only the act is sin but desire for a woman is adultery and is therefore a sin too. The standard or the litmus test of sin is not in action only, but anything that is perverse to human nature and God's plan. In the same way, homosexual orientation - and not just homosexual behavior - is a sin.

The diabolic agenda in today's world has changed the old paradigm that people are responsible for their actions. Instead we are now facing a world where people believe one is genetically predisposed to homosexual attraction. They "were born that way" and they can't do anything about it. But St John Chrysostom makes a point to show that St Paul wrote his condemnation against homosexuality in such a way that it is inexcusable to claim injustice for the judgment homosexuals receive. Homosexuality, like any sin, is a choice.

Who are you? Oh, I don't know........something like the Vicar of Christ on earth?

And I love the way he uses the PC term for "gay" for homosexuals.

This guy is way too wishy-washy for me, just another closet Cultural Marxist from the Jesuit school.

I see the Church reverting back to the good ol PJII days except even worse with some sort of cultural ecumenism or something with this pope going way out of his way to appear "humble" and charitable to sexual deviants of every stripe.

And here I had so much hope with Benedict before him.

time for a big let down....again.

If only the world had a less wishy-washy pope, we could stamp out sexual deviancy ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

I would have to disagree that homosexual attraction or orientation is not a sin but homosexual behavior is a sin. St Paul tells us in Romans 1 that homosexuality is against nature and by default an act of lawlessness.

Oh did he now?

Romans 1:26, 27:"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Actually, he is clearly referring to lust and actions. If I'm attracted to women, am I sinning? What about if someone is attracted to members of the same sex? How about Fr. Seraphim Rose, who was gay, yet didn't exercise his feelings and didn't entertain his desires?

Quote

Is this not Orthodox theology?

No, as who you are attracted to is not something that can be sinful. But acting on that, and entertaining lustful thoughts is what is sinful.

What Fr. Seraphim Rose sinning on his deathbed just because he was attracted to other men? It's just absolutely stupid to say that your sexual orientation is a sin. It's a product of the "uck" factor that people feel, and this false assumption that it's impossible to be born gay.

What? Is heterosexuality the only non-sinful orientation? Should all homosexuals be driven into heterosexuality? Will they only be repentant then?

No, as I said before. Orthodoxy teaches that it is the lust, the thoughts and the actions that determine if you are sinning. It isn't your state.

Being born homosexual is no different than a little child who is born addicted to crack. Yet that little child has committed no sin, and would receive a full Orthodox funeral if he dies before his baptism and dies at a young age. However, that little child, as he grows up, will indeed sin if he actually abuses drugs, acting on his addiction.

Same for those addicted to nicotine. People who don't smoke anymore, or who don't drink anymore, but who are still addicted to nicotine and alcohol aren't sinning just by being addicted. They would sin though if they smoked, or if they got drunk.

Our Church makes a strong distinction between a person's fallen psychological, physical state that is often unalterable, with any thoughts and actions that might result from their fallen nature.

Also, the fallen nature that results from the ancestral curse doesn't mean you have sinned. Yet it makes you a fallen being with a tendency to sin, an inevitability of earthly death and in need of salvation. Look at the Holy Theotokos, she was born a fallen human being, but never had any personal sin despite being born a fallen human being.

God already judged the actions of gay people. He called it an abomination.

The actions, but not their orientation. Homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. If being homosexual condemns one, then homosexuals have no chance of salvation because they cannot change their psychology, they cannot switch from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex.

I have several gay friends, and I know that for at least several of them, they cannot and will not be attracted to women, ever. Yet I also disagree with their lifestyle and their choice to act upon their orientation, rather than seeking repentance and living in chastity.

We are all born fallen, we are all born sinners, but our natural state, even broken and fallen, doesn't automatically attribute sin to us. A blind person, born blind and thus "broken" or "fallen" isn't sinning by being blind. An autistic person, born autistic, and thus born "broken" or "fallen" isn't sinning by being autistic. A homosexual person, born homosexual, and thus born "broken" or "fallen", isn't sinning by just being homosexual, they sin if they act on it, but not just by being it.

God already judged the actions of gay people. He called it an abomination.

The actions, but not their orientation. Homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. If being homosexual condemns one, then homosexuals have no chance of salvation because they cannot change their psychology, they cannot switch from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex.

I have several gay friends, and I know that for at least several of them, they cannot and will not be attracted to women, ever. Yet I also disagree with their lifestyle and their choice to act upon their orientation, rather than seeking repentance and living in chastity.

Yes, the actions. We all struggle with sin, and I do believe homosexuals can reach salvation. There are few sins in the Bible that are called "an abomination". Also in the NT, it was judged sinful (the actions).

I am still wondering however if it is fair to call a person who does not engage in sex, to have an "orientation". If they are celibate, then so be it. Attraction is the next door neighbor of lust.... A man looking at a man lustfully, I'm sure would be considered an "abomination of the heart". Of course, that's up to God.

I absolutely agree with you though, if a person struggles with homosexual temptations, they can reach salvation. It's a sin.

God already judged the actions of gay people. He called it an abomination.

The actions, but not their orientation. Homosexuals cannot become heterosexuals. If being homosexual condemns one, then homosexuals have no chance of salvation because they cannot change their psychology, they cannot switch from being attracted to the same sex to being attracted to the opposite sex.

I have several gay friends, and I know that for at least several of them, they cannot and will not be attracted to women, ever. Yet I also disagree with their lifestyle and their choice to act upon their orientation, rather than seeking repentance and living in chastity.

Yes, the actions. We all struggle with sin, and I do believe homosexuals can reach salvation. There are few sins in the Bible that are called "an abomination". Also in the NT, it was judged sinful (the actions).

I am still wondering however if it is fair to call a person who does not engage in sex, to have an "orientation". If they are celibate, then so be it. Attraction is the next door neighbor of lust.... A man looking at a man lustfully, I'm sure would be considered an "abomination of the heart". Of course, that's up to God.

I absolutely agree with you though, if a person struggles with homosexual temptations, they can reach salvation. It's a sin.

...In the same way, homosexual orientation - and not just homosexual behavior - is a sin.

The diabolic agenda in today's world has changed the old paradigm that people are responsible for their actions. Instead we are now facing a world where people believe one is genetically predisposed to homosexual attraction. They "were born that way" and they can't do anything about it. But St John Chrysostom makes a point to show that St Paul wrote his condemnation against homosexuality in such a way that it is inexcusable to claim injustice for the judgment homosexuals receive. Homosexuality, like any sin, is a choice.

Not according to recent scientific studies:

Quote

In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that nature, not nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’s author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up. His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrated that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research showed that the area of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormones in utero.

In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that “resembles a man’s more than a straight female.” Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Bailey studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

Now I'm not one to ignore the OT, but, I think you are a bit guilty here of cherry-picking Scriptures like the Protestants do. The Pentateuch also has a law against mixing two different colored threads together to make a garment and says not to eat pork, yet, most of us will violate those rules several times in our life.

Is it really the "mixing two different coloured threads together to make a garment" that is prohibited, or is it the mixing of two different types of cloth? I thought it was the latter. Cotton-poly blend would not be appropriate, but I don't think it has to do with the colour. The curtains of the Tent of Meeting were specifically ordered to be made of three different types of coloured thread, but presumably there was only one material.

I think...

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

I'm not the one blinded by patriotism to my crap *** country who thinks I deserve everything handed to me on a platter simply because I chose to pick up a gun and go out and fight the politicians' pointless wars. Who's the real kid?

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

I'm not the one blinded by patriotism to my crap *** country who thinks I deserve everything handed to me on a platter simply because I chose to pick up a gun and go out and fight the politicians' pointless wars. Who's the real kid?

You must tell me more about myself over tea sometime. I must be misinformed.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

I'm not the one blinded by patriotism to my crap *** country who thinks I deserve everything handed to me on a platter simply because I chose to pick up a gun and go out and fight the politicians' pointless wars. Who's the real kid?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

"For in thy sight there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth. Who brings this to my remembrance? Does not each little one, in whom I now observe what I no longer remember of myself? In what ways, in that time, did I sin? Was it that I cried for the breast? If I should now so cry--not indeed for the breast, but for food suitable to my condition--I should be most justly laughed at and rebuked. What I did then deserved rebuke but, since I could not understand those who rebuked me, neither custom nor common sense permitted me to be rebuked. As we grow we root out and cast away from us such childish habits. Yet I have not seen anyone who is wise who cast away the good when trying to purge the bad. Nor was it good, even in that time, to strive to get by crying what, if it had been given me, would have been hurtful; or to be bitterly indignant at those who, because they were older--not slaves, either, but free--and wiser than I, would not indulge my capricious desires. Was it a good thing for me to try, by struggling as hard as I could, to harm them for not obeying me, even when it would have done me harm to have been obeyed? Thus, the infant’s innocence lies in the weakness of his body and not in the infant mind. I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched another infant at the breast.

Who is ignorant of this? Mothers and nurses tell us that they cure these things by I know not what remedies. But is this innocence, when the fountain of milk is flowing fresh and abundant, that another who needs it should not be allowed to share it, even though he requires such nourishment to sustain his life? Yet we look leniently on such things, not because they are not faults, or even small faults, but because they will vanish as the years pass. For, although we allow for such things in an infant, the same things could not be tolerated patiently in an adult." - St. Augustine, Confessions

Shhhh

You'll shatter the Ameridox notion that Western Saints aren't really Saints and that their theology must be discredited even though St. Augustine was Canonized a Saint in the 3rd Ecumenical Council and declared a doctor of the Church in the 5th

Hmm... Maybe it's the proven fact that St Augustine was wrong on sin and human nature? Saints make mistakes and errors to, he's a Saint, but his theological error eventually led to the decline of Rome into heresy.

Except the statements he made here are directly quoted in Orthodox liturgical services and are based on one of the most used Psalms (for a sinner my mother conceived, Psalm 50).

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

I'm not the one blinded by patriotism to my crap *** country who thinks I deserve everything handed to me on a platter simply because I chose to pick up a gun and go out and fight the politicians' pointless wars. Who's the real kid?

I didn't get that either... I figured it has something to do with a thread in the politics section *shrugs*

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

A lot better than that Pope Benedict guy responsible for the transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa

Yeah,it's Benedict's fault that people don't exercise responsibility. You just implied that the pope is a killer or at least an accomplice to it. You sicken me. It's no small wonder why your parents don't give you the independence you crave: you're still a kid!

I'm not the one blinded by patriotism to my crap *** country who thinks I deserve everything handed to me on a platter simply because I chose to pick up a gun and go out and fight the politicians' pointless wars. Who's the real kid?

I didn't get that either... I figured it has something to do with a thread in the politics section *shrugs*

However homosexuality is a sin since it is transgression from the original plan of God.

Alright, but how about this:

Does the homosexual disposition have a rightly-ordered analogue which is distinct from heterosexuality? Or, in other words, could you affirm that what we encounter as the homosexual disposition in the fallen world , has a unique function or expression in its redeemed state?

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 02:21:03 AM by NicholasMyra »

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that nature, not nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’s author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up. His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrated that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research showed that the area of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormones in utero.

In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that “resembles a man’s more than a straight female.” Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Bailey studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

None of these studies show a causal relationship. Without details of these studies, it means nothing. I bet all of these studies were not double blind studies or they were pilot studies or retrospective studies that are extremely limited in its ability to conclude fact. Also, without actual statistics, all these findings can be based on chance alone. We also need to know sample size. Stating 53% of twins were homosexual means nothing if there were only two or three sets of twins. None of these studies examine religious orientation, active commitment in God, social acceptance, politics and baseline psychological status. Drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice based on these studies is ignorance at best.

Quote

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

Are we then supposed to automatically conclude that all left-handed, younger siblings with hair whorls in a counterclockwise pattern are all homosexual? This is absurd. What if a person is a left-handed younger sibling only? Does two out of three requirements automatically make a person heterosexual?

Quote

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Of course they will say this. These researches would be in intellectual hell if they would examine lack of faith and lack of following God's commandments. This only proves my comment before that the paradigm now is to blame someone or something else, like genetics and environmental factors, for evil behavior.

Quote

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

Good to know that Sven Bocklandt is more authoritative than thousands of years of ancient and modern civilizations of human cultures. Just because "virtually every animal species ... has a small minority who demonstrate homosexual activity" neither proves homosexuality is not a choice nor does it prove that such predilection exists for humans. If it did, then every civilization from the ancient world to now would not have forbidden it legally and morally. If every animal species was homosexual, humans would still be different since St Gregory taught us in his liturgy "You sanctified my nature in you." Because of the incarnation, Christ sanctified human nature to be holy and partake of the divine nature.

Quote

Nothing diabolical going on here. Just science doing what it does.

If nothing diabolical is going on here, then it's good to know that science supersedes the teachings of the fathers. If not and the ancient fathers' wisdom and divine revelation triumph over science, then it is diabolic.

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

Are we then supposed to automatically conclude that all left-handed, younger siblings with hair whorls in a counterclockwise pattern are all homosexual? This is absurd. What if a person is a left-handed younger sibling only? Does two out of three requirements automatically make a person heterosexual?

I am apparently 1/3 homosexual. Good thing I comb my hair in a clockwise pattern, or I might have tipped the balance the other direction!

Was it one of the Canons or one of the Epistles that said: "If thou quoteth the first verse of the seventh chapter of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew and thou doth not immediately quoteth also the second, then thou shallt be called anathema."?

I'm pretty sure it is in there somewhere. There is no limit to the evil that can be done by quoting Matthew 7:1 when not accompanied by Matthew 7:2.

Then again, Matthew 7:6 gives us a good idea what happens when we try explaining this to people of a certain persuasion.

...In the same way, homosexual orientation - and not just homosexual behavior - is a sin.

The diabolic agenda in today's world has changed the old paradigm that people are responsible for their actions. Instead we are now facing a world where people believe one is genetically predisposed to homosexual attraction. They "were born that way" and they can't do anything about it. But St John Chrysostom makes a point to show that St Paul wrote his condemnation against homosexuality in such a way that it is inexcusable to claim injustice for the judgment homosexuals receive. Homosexuality, like any sin, is a choice.

Not according to recent scientific studies:

Quote

In 1993, the National Institute of Health’s Dean Hamer illustrated that homosexuality might be inherited from the mother by her sons through a specific region of the X chromosome (Xq28). Hamer demonstrated this by noting that 33 out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers whom he studied showed the same variation in the tip of the chromosome.

A June 2006 Canadian study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that nature, not nurture, explains the origins of homosexuality. The study’s author, Prof. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, explored the causes behind what is known as the fraternal birth order. The research showed a correlation between the number of biological older brothers a man has and his sexual orientation. Dividing his sample of more than 900 heterosexual and homosexual men into four groups, Bogaert examined the impact of all types of older brothers, including step and adopted siblings, and the amount of time brothers spent together while growing up. His research found that only the number of biological brothers had an impact on sexuality, regardless of whether the boys were raised together.

A study released in May 2006 by Swedish scientists demonstrated that biology plays a key role in determining a person’ sexuality. The research showed that the area of the brain that helps regulate sexuality — the hypothalamus – reacted the exact same way in straight women and gay men when exposed to male pheromones, which are chemicals designed to provoke a behavior such as sexual arousal. The same area of the brain only became stimulated in heterosexual men when introduced to female pheromones.

In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a study in the esteemed biomedical journal Human Genetics, claiming he identified three chromosomal regions linked to sexual orientation in men: 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.

In 2003, University of Texas psychoacoustics specialist Dennis McFadden found that when measuring the way the brain reacts to sound, lesbians fell in between heterosexual men and straight women, suggesting they might be exposed to higher than normal levels of male hormones in utero.

In 2003, University of Liverpool biologist John T. Manning found that the lesbians whom he studied have a hand pattern that “resembles a man’s more than a straight female.” Manning concluded from his study that this “strongly tells us that female homosexuals have had higher levels of exposure to testosterone before birth.”

A 1991 study by Dr. Simon LeVay found that a specific region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men as it is in women or gay men. This strongly points to the role of biology in sexual orientation.

Another 1991 study by scientists Richard Pillard and John M. Bailey studied homosexuality among brothers and found that 53 percent of identical twins were both gay. In adoptive brothers, 11 percent were both homosexual. Of non-twin biological siblings, 9 percent were gay. Again, this points to solid evidence that homosexuality is a matter of nature.

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

This is typical of bad science "Left handed, younger sibling, hair that swirls" .... Correlation does not prove causation.

It's like observing "Bald men have more heart attacks"...That may be perfectly true, but you are only observing a correlation. You must then discovery the mechanism... the causal link that connects the two.

The problem for us is that we believe that there are two sexes, Man and Woman. But the secular push is to have people believe there are several "Types" of people. Straight Men, Gay Men, Straight Women, Lesbian Women and some of each. We must reject that idea.

That doesn't mean that certain desires are not inherited. There are plenty of desires that we inherit from our families. Certain tastes for food, salty vs sweet etc. It is also possible that some people are wired in a way that predisposes them to same sex attraction. I am pretty sure I am wired to want to have sex with every woman who similes at me.. I do my best to resist.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 09:55:28 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

If it did, then every civilization from the ancient world to now would not have forbidden it legally and morally.

Every civilization did not forbid it. See this, for starters:

Quote

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus.

Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

Similar berdaches and same-sex-style marriages were found among cultures in Africa, and also included an arrangement known as “female husbands.” Often barren, these women assumed the cultural roles of men, including having the same rights as men—which included seeking damages if her wife should have relations outside of their union without her consent. The berdache tradition of same-sex marriage, in various forms, is also well documented throughout Asia, from eunuchs in China to hijras in India (Eskridge).

Drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice based on these studies is ignorance at best.

I think I can safely call that a drastic over-statement. No, these little summaries of scientific studies do not essentially prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But as the studies continue, and their findings accumulate, the fact that homosexuality is largely predetermined gains more and more evidential support. There is a plethora of data out there for your perusal, if you wish to pursue this issue on your own. However, I have spent hours of time posting scientific findings around here before, only to have the findings dismissed as 'diabolical' or 'propaganda' or what have you (because they contradicted some church father or another, or one's own long-held, cherished, and unsupported beliefs).

Are we then supposed to automatically conclude that all left-handed, younger siblings with hair whorls in a counterclockwise pattern are all homosexual? This is absurd.

Agreed, that would be an absurd conclusion to arrive at based on these findings. And that is not at all what is being suggested. What it does do is add to "a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born." Come on, people! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

...it's good to know that science supersedes the teachings of the fathers. If not and the ancient fathers' wisdom and divine revelation triumph over science, then it is diabolic.

I wouldn't say there is anything necessarily 'diaboloc' about the ancient fathers having a limited understanding of such issues as biology, genetics, epigenetics, and so on. It is good - very good - to know that with science, we can learn more about ourselves and gain a greater, clearer, and more comprehensive and accurate understanding of how things work.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 10:22:55 AM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

The problem for us is that we believe that there are two sexes, Man and Woman. But the secular push is to have people believe there are several "Types" of people. Straight Men, Gay Men, Straight Women, Lesbian Women and some of each. We must reject that idea.

Personally, I feel it is intellectually dishonest to reject a concept that is increasingly supported by science out of hand, without deeply considering the evidence. If we must reject anything based on a religious bias or conviction, then we may as well make up whatever we want about everything. No thanks.

It is also possible that some people are wired in a way that predisposes them to same sex attraction. I am pretty sure I am wired to want to have sex with every woman who similes at me.. I do my best to resist.

Not only possible. True. And anyway, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, same-sex attraction is not a sin. According to the Church, what we do with that or any passion/attraction/desire is at issue, not the predisposition. I am merely arguing that having or being predisposed to having same-sex attraction is not a choice.

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

Note to everyone, correlation does not imply causation but it can however, imply a relationship between the factors studied.

Sure , when you observe a correlation you may then want to do a study and find out if the correlated things have a causal link.

You also have to be careful about the agenda of the investigator. There are a trillion correlations that go unnoticed because there is no issue or cultural agenda spurring people on.

The Homosexual political agenda is now hot on the trail of finding the tell tale "Gay Gene" that proves they are essentially different. It is a political agenda that drives the investigation which is always dangerous grounds. Highly charged political necessity and good science are often not compatible and can result in very bad science that merely sings to the choir.

And even if there is a Gay Gene, it still does not mean same sex attraction is not a desire. You may have inherited certain desires. Which you can resist if they are sinful... I am pretty sure I inherited the desire to have sex with every woman who.........wait, I already said that.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The problem for us is that we believe that there are two sexes, Man and Woman. But the secular push is to have people believe there are several "Types" of people. Straight Men, Gay Men, Straight Women, Lesbian Women and some of each. We must reject that idea.

Personally, I feel it is intellectually dishonest to reject a concept that is increasingly supported by science out of hand, without deeply considering the evidence. If we must reject anything based on a religious bias or conviction, then we may as well make up whatever we want about everything. No thanks.

It is also possible that some people are wired in a way that predisposes them to same sex attraction. I am pretty sure I am wired to want to have sex with every woman who similes at me.. I do my best to resist.

Not only possible. True. And anyway, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, same-sex attraction is not a sin. According to the Church, what we do with that or any passion/attraction/desire is at issue, not the predisposition. I am merely arguing that having or being predisposed to having same-sex attraction is not a choice.

Personally, I feel it is intellectually dishonest to reject a concept that is increasingly supported by science out of hand, without deeply considering the evidence. If we must reject anything based on a religious bias or conviction, then we may as well make up whatever we want about everything. No thanks.

Personally, I believe that the combination of a popular political agenda and scientific investigation should send up warning flairs. We saw this in Food Politics which we have discussed in other threads.. Political-Economic agenda's produced "Science" that fit the agenda. Bad Science. Science that doesn't hold up under rigorous scrutiny, but the political climate shuts up critics ..and often de-funds them. There is a corrupting influence between hot political agenda's , money and Science..Seen it before. Cavet Emptor

As far as Homosexual Desire not acted on being fine, I am not so sure that is the Traditional teaching of Christianity.. I am not sure, just my half educated understanding . Better theologians here may explain further.

For example, I am wired to desire Women... I am married.... If I dwell on that natural hard wired desire in my mind, even though i do not commit adultery, isnt that sinful? I need to try to extinguish that impulse. That impulse deforms me spiritually.. I need to gain discipline. But modern society tells people that if they do that, they will become "repressed" and unhappy. We swing the other way We say happiness is when you remake yourself in a God Pleasing way... On lots of levels.

Both the impulse and the action are sinful.

The road is hard, the gate is narrow.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

This is completely off topic, but why did God make animals look fairly close to one another within the species, but humans with such wild divergences? Most house cats, for example, look rather similar unless they have some sort of a birth defect.

Humans, on the other hand, look quite different. Is it just our greater familiarity with our own species or do you thing that humans actaully have a greater divergence?

A fine mixture of specieism and not understanding what cats are saying. If you look at the little guy front-left, he is clearly glowering at the one on the far right, which looks perfectly cute to me, but amongst cats, she would be considered ugly. I can just hear him saying, "day-um that one ugly molly. Ugliest molly in this entire clowder. What do you think Mister Flufflekins? (Cat looking down above centermost fore cat.)" "Hellz to the yeah! That molly so ugly, not even Mister Purrbottom be askin' her out! I gotsa avert my eyes!"

If it did, then every civilization from the ancient world to now would not have forbidden it legally and morally.

Every civilization did not forbid it. See this, for starters:

Quote

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus.

Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

Similar berdaches and same-sex-style marriages were found among cultures in Africa, and also included an arrangement known as “female husbands.” Often barren, these women assumed the cultural roles of men, including having the same rights as men—which included seeking damages if her wife should have relations outside of their union without her consent. The berdache tradition of same-sex marriage, in various forms, is also well documented throughout Asia, from eunuchs in China to hijras in India (Eskridge).

Drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice based on these studies is ignorance at best.

I think I can safely call that a drastic over-statement. No, these little summaries of scientific studies do not essentially prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But as the studies continue, and their findings accumulate, the fact that homosexuality is largely predetermined gains more and more evidential support. There is a plethora of data out there for your perusal, if you wish to pursue this issue on your own. However, I have spent hours of time posting scientific findings around here before, only to have the findings dismissed as 'diabolical' or 'propaganda' or what have you (because they contradicted some church father or another, or one's own long-held, cherished, and unsupported beliefs).

Are we then supposed to automatically conclude that all left-handed, younger siblings with hair whorls in a counterclockwise pattern are all homosexual? This is absurd.

Agreed, that would be an absurd conclusion to arrive at based on these findings. And that is not at all what is being suggested. What it does do is add to "a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born." Come on, people! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

...it's good to know that science supersedes the teachings of the fathers. If not and the ancient fathers' wisdom and divine revelation triumph over science, then it is diabolic.

I wouldn't say there is anything necessarily 'diaboloc' about the ancient fathers having a limited understanding of such issues as biology, genetics, epigenetics, and so on. It is good - very good - to know that with science, we can learn more about ourselves and gain a greater, clearer, and more comprehensive and accurate understanding of how things work.

There was all kinds of debauchery in the Ancient World, especially involving sex.

The reason there were Sun Worshipers was that the Sun is obviously powerful.

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

A fine mixture of specieism and not understanding what cats are saying. If you look at the little guy front-left, he is clearly glowering at the one on the far right, which looks perfectly cute to me, but amongst cats, she would be considered ugly. I can just hear him saying, "day-um that one ugly molly. Ugliest molly in this entire clowder. What do you think Mister Flufflekins? (Cat looking down above centermost fore cat.)" "Hellz to the yeah! That molly so ugly, not even Mister Purrbottom be askin' her out! I gotsa avert my eyes!"

This is completely off topic, but why did God make animals look fairly close to one another within the species, but humans with such wild divergences? Most house cats, for example, look rather similar unless they have some sort of a birth defect.

Humans, on the other hand, look quite different. Is it just our greater familiarity with our own species or do you thing that humans actaully have a greater divergence?

I think that's a variant of the Cross Race effect.

Quote

The cross-race effect (also referred to as the own-race bias or other-race effect) is a facial recognition phenomenon in which individuals show superior performance in identifying faces of their own race when compared with memory for faces of another, less familiar race.

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

A Catholic priest was interviewed on a TV talk show and was questioned about this statement. The priest dutifully answered that we are to love the sinner but not the sin. Well enough, but when asked how many gay priests the RCC has, the priest said he didn't know any exact number but surmised that there were: "quite a few". This may explain the Pope's coming out at this time on Gays in general and this new attitude.

This is completely off topic, but why did God make animals look fairly close to one another within the species, but humans with such wild divergences? Most house cats, for example, look rather similar unless they have some sort of a birth defect.

Humans, on the other hand, look quite different. Is it just our greater familiarity with our own species or do you thing that humans actaully have a greater divergence?

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

For example, you may think Chinese people are a variation as compared to non Asians. But when the Chinese have their DNA tested the are genetically exactly the same as the rest of us and they descended from the exact same small group of people who left Africa 60,000 years ago.Their unique physical traits are merely sexual preference.. At some point, the petite woman with almond eyes was considered cute and off they went. Now they all have those traits.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 11:07:18 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

A Catholic priest was interviewed on a TV talk show and was questioned about this statement. The priest dutifully answered that we are to love the sinner but not the sin. Well enough, but when asked how many gay priests the RCC has, the priest said he didn't know any exact number but surmised that there were: "quite a few". This may explain the Pope's coming out at this time on Gays in general and this new attitude.

ya think??

In the book "Goodbye Good Men" the author estimated that just under 50% of RCC Priests are Homosexual.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

A Catholic priest was interviewed on a TV talk show and was questioned about this statement. The priest dutifully answered that we are to love the sinner but not the sin. Well enough, but when asked how many gay priests the RCC has, the priest said he didn't know any exact number but surmised that there were: "quite a few". This may explain the Pope's coming out at this time on Gays in general and this new attitude.

ya think??

In the book "Goodbye Good Men" the author estimated that just under 50% of RCC Priests are Homosexual.

I certainly doubt very much if you are going to get any RCC clergy to say "Man we are lousy with them". But, being serious here, there are many maybe too many I don't know for sure. Im hoping they are both physically and spiritually celibate.

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

A Catholic priest was interviewed on a TV talk show and was questioned about this statement. The priest dutifully answered that we are to love the sinner but not the sin. Well enough, but when asked how many gay priests the RCC has, the priest said he didn't know any exact number but surmised that there were: "quite a few". This may explain the Pope's coming out at this time on Gays in general and this new attitude.

ya think??

In the book "Goodbye Good Men" the author estimated that just under 50% of RCC Priests are Homosexual.

Yes, I also read the book. One has to take into account that some Catholic Gay men seek some mystical or spiritual answer to their dilemma. And many seek the priesthood as an answer to their plight. They hope that their "gayness" will become a nonentity over time if one spends enough time at prayer, but to many this may also become a major disappointment. I don't know what the answer is but I have to feel some empathy for those who are still struggling.

He advocated a more-open attitude towards sexuality, a stance which earned him the sobriquet of "sex guru" in the Indian and (later) international press.[5]

Of course I remember Rajneesh. He was a narcissistic cult leader. I'm not a fan.

Surely not every scientist, psychologist, and social worker (etc.) is biased towards a particular "political agenda" when they are studying this stuff. Just look at the results of Christian experiments with "reparative therapy" if you want further evidence from an entirely different source (outside of this agenda you are suspicious of).

Quote

There was all kinds of debauchery in the Ancient World, especially involving sex.

Indeed. I was merely pointing out to another poster on this thread that he was incorrect in claiming that all ancient cultures have unanimously forbidden homosexuality.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 11:29:05 AM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd personally beware of phrasing it this way. If the Jews got a handle on pagan religious practices and ideas regarding sex (which would otherwise be very attractive to human beings) by limiting it within a very particular context and cloaking it in an alternative "God-language", then is it really God's morality or the Jews' morality? If it is the latter, then it's just another cultural/religious variation out of several. If, however, it is the former, then it is applicable across the board to all humans who were created by God (i.e., all).

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

I understand the sexual preference that generated this variation:

But what sexual preference generated this variation:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

A Catholic priest was interviewed on a TV talk show and was questioned about this statement. The priest dutifully answered that we are to love the sinner but not the sin. Well enough, but when asked how many gay priests the RCC has, the priest said he didn't know any exact number but surmised that there were: "quite a few". This may explain the Pope's coming out at this time on Gays in general and this new attitude.

ya think??

In the book "Goodbye Good Men" the author estimated that just under 50% of RCC Priests are Homosexual.

Yes, I also read the book. One has to take into account that some Catholic Gay men seek some mystical or spiritual answer to their dilemma. And many seek the priesthood as an answer to their plight. They hope that their "gayness" will become a nonentity over time if one spends enough time at prayer, but to many this may also become a major disappointment. I don't know what the answer is but I have to feel some empathy for those who are still struggling.

I agree.. There are two sides. One is that this is an opportunity for Homosexuals to deal with their Homosexuality within the framework of the Church.. Good move.. It is never ever acknowledged by the Gay community that there is any other way to be Gay then the secular , lascivious way we are all familiar with.

On the other hand the RCC has to deal with a high concentration of people with the same spiritual challenge and that may effect their internal politics and maybe their doctrine as we are seeing just now.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd personally beware of phrasing it this way. If the Jews got a handle on pagan religious practices and ideas regarding sex (which would otherwise be very attractive to human beings) by limiting it within a very particular context and cloaking it in an alternative "God-language", then is it really God's morality or the Jews' morality? If it is the latter, then it's just another cultural/religious variation out of several. If, however, it is the former, then it is applicable across the board to all humans who were created by God (i.e., all).

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

I understand the sexual preference that generated this variation:

But what sexual preference generated this variation:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

We believe that up until the coming of the Messiah that both the Jewish Prophets and the Law were God inspired. We just look back at most things through the lens of Christs coming. We affirmed the God centered ness of Marriage as developed by the Jews because we kept it as Christians..Stamp of approval sort of thing.

I often notice that when men make fun of unattractive women they are usually not a great catch themselves.. "Dude..Have you looked into a mirror lately?"

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 01:07:06 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I will freely admit that I was born at the shallow end of the gene pool as far as physical features are concerned. Fortunately, I married up, so hopefully the genes I passed to my children will be dilluted. So far, they are as cute as buttons, so hopefully, they have dodged the ugly bullet.

He advocated a more-open attitude towards sexuality, a stance which earned him the sobriquet of "sex guru" in the Indian and (later) international press.[5]

Of course I remember Rajneesh. He was a narcissistic cult leader. I'm not a fan.

Surely not every scientist, psychologist, and social worker (etc.) is biased towards a particular "political agenda" when they are studying this stuff. Just look at the results of Christian experiments with "reparative therapy" if you want further evidence from an entirely different source (outside of this agenda you are suspicious of).

Quote

There was all kinds of debauchery in the Ancient World, especially involving sex.

Indeed. I was merely pointing out to another poster on this thread that he was incorrect in claiming that all ancient cultures have unanimously forbidden homosexuality.

Do you think there is money available for Scientits to try to prove a politically incorrect theory that does not conform to the current Gay Agenda?... I think it would be next to impossable.. Credible studies are very expensive.. Would NIH fund such a thing?.. Certainly not.. How about one the great Universities? There would be riots if it was found out..

Nope, only one angle on this is allowed right now.. And even critics will have a hard time if they value their careers.

Anyone lookig for the Hetero gene? And how come Homnosexuality is not to be overcome and is hardwired but Hetero sexuality is still just a desire? Don't we hear all the time form the Gay Movement that the truth is that Hetero's are really all bi sexual..It's a matter of choice for us..but not for them..They have a Gene that forces them. But the rest of us don't.. Lab results to follow.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 01:18:20 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I would have to disagree that homosexual attraction or orientation is not a sin but homosexual behavior is a sin. St Paul tells us in Romans 1 that homosexuality is against nature and by default an act of lawlessness.

Oh did he now?

Yes, he did. You even quoted the scripture "abandoned natural relations...received in themselves the due penalty of their error.". From the context, it is obvious St Paul speaks of homosexuality as "abandoning natural relations". And concludes there is a judgment for this error. If homosexuality is not lawlessness, there would be no penalty.

Quote

Romans 1:26, 27:"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Actually, he is clearly referring to lust and actions.[/quote]He is not referring to lust and actions only. He is talking about abandoning natural order. Homosexuality will always be an unnatural order.

Quote

If I'm attracted to women, am I sinning?

If you are attracted to women in the natural order of God's plan, then no. But if you are attracted to every women with two legs that you see then yes, you are sinning. This is from Christ himself.

Quote

What about if someone is attracted to members of the same sex?

This is worse. At least attraction to women is in God's plan. Homosexuality is not nor will it ever be.

Quote

How about Fr. Seraphim Rose, who was gay, yet didn't exercise his feelings and didn't entertain his desires?

Then "he will receive in himself the penalty due for his error". It is irrelevant if the person is a priest or not. It is irrelevant if a person actually commits a homosexual act or simply had a homosexual desire. Having homosexual feelings or attraction is no different than committing homosexual "adultery in his heart".

Would you argue that a person who has pedophilic attraction if he never acts on it, is not sinning? No. Pedophilia, like homosexuality, is unnatural and a violation of God's holiness. If one has such feelings, he must repent.

Quote

Is this not Orthodox theology?

No, as who you are attracted to is not something that can be sinful.[/quote]It is sinful, if such an attraction was outside God's plan. I refer back to St John Chrysostom. Eating rocks for food is a sin. Even thinking of eating rocks for food instead of actual food is a sin. Homosexuality (and homosexual attraction) is worse because this abomination completely curses God's plan for marriage and therefore curses God entirely.

Quote

But acting on that, and entertaining lustful thoughts is what is sinful.

What Fr. Seraphim Rose sinning on his deathbed just because he was attracted to other men? It's just absolutely stupid to say that your sexual orientation is a sin. It's a product of the "uck" factor that people feel, and this false assumption that it's impossible to be born gay.

It IS impossible to be born gay. If people were born gay, then God who condemned homosexuality in the Old and New Testaments, would be an evil god for creating a person gay and then forbidding homosexuality.

Quote

What? Is heterosexuality the only non-sinful orientation?

Yes if done according to God's will and time.

Quote

Should all homosexuals be driven into heterosexuality?

Yes. A sin is a sin and it will lead to eternal condemnation if not repented.

Quote

Will they only be repentant then?

No. All forms of sexual immorality requires repentance. Acts 15.

Quote

No, as I said before. Orthodoxy teaches that it is the lust, the thoughts and the actions that determine if you are sinning. It isn't your state.

How do one know one is homosexual if one doesn't have the lusts, the thoughts and the actions? Even if I saw two men committing homosexual acts and I simply turned my head to watch without any inclination of turning my head away, I would be condoning their actions and by default breaking God's commandment who said such things receive condemnation. Simply refusing to turn my head to watch is an act of lust. And simply condoning homosexuality is wrong.

Quote

Being born homosexual is no different than a little child who is born addicted to crack.

Not true. "No specific disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used cocaine while pregnant.[2] Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE (prenatal cocain exposure) on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores.[3] PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth.[4]...Almost every prenatal complication originally thought to be due directly to PCE was found to result from confounding factors such as poor maternal nutrition, use of other drugs, depression, and lack of prenatal care.[16] More recently the scientific community has begun to reach an understanding that PCE does have some important effects but that they are not severe as was predicted in the early studies.[12] Most people who were exposed to cocaine in utero are normal.[1] The effects of PCE are subtle but they exist.[14][17][18]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_cocaine_exposure

Even if I were to believe an actual causal relationship with prenatal cocaine exposure exists, it doesn't mean the child will automatically be a cocaine addict. There is no excuse for the child for taking cocaine later in life. Additionally, a child born exposed to a mother who had homosexual sex during pregnancy will not become homosexual.

Quote

Yet that little child has committed no sin, and would receive a full Orthodox funeral if he dies before his baptism and dies at a young age. However, that little child, as he grows up, will indeed sin if he actually abuses drugs, acting on his addiction.

Same for those addicted to nicotine. People who don't smoke anymore, or who don't drink anymore, but who are still addicted to nicotine and alcohol aren't sinning just by being addicted. They would sin though if they smoked, or if they got drunk.

This is confounding two separate issues. Those who have fallen into addiction and repented are not the same as those who are addicted and refuse to acknowledge that addiction is a sin. The refusal itself is the sin.

Yes, I felt the Pope took a very wise approach on the topic. This guy is exactly what the RC Church needs right now.

The RC needs more of his type AND more of Benedict's type.

YES!

i love pope francis should i make a separate 'i love pope francis' thread? or would that degenerate into bickering?

i also think that sexual orientation is more to do with upbringing than genes, from my experience of gay friends and my scientific reading on the subject. but that is oversimplifying of course. it is a complex subject, and i agree with pope francis' comments.i love pope francis, may God guide him

We believe that up until the coming of the Messiah that both the Jewish Prophets and the Law were God inspired. We just look back at most things through the lens of Christs coming. We affirmed the God centered ness of Marriage as developed by the Jews because we kept it as Christians..Stamp of approval sort of thing.

Oh, I agree, my point was that what you said, as you phrased it, makes it seem like a subjective standard, whereas we hold it to be objective.

Quote

I often notice that when men make fun of unattractive women they are usually not a great catch themselves.. "Dude..Have you looked into a mirror lately?"

I never implied I was, I quite agree.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd personally beware of phrasing it this way. If the Jews got a handle on pagan religious practices and ideas regarding sex (which would otherwise be very attractive to human beings) by limiting it within a very particular context and cloaking it in an alternative "God-language", then is it really God's morality or the Jews' morality? If it is the latter, then it's just another cultural/religious variation out of several. If, however, it is the former, then it is applicable across the board to all humans who were created by God (i.e., all).

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

I understand the sexual preference that generated this variation:

But what sexual preference generated this variation:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

We believe that up until the coming of the Messiah that both the Jewish Prophets and the Law were God inspired. We just look back at most things through the lens of Christs coming. We affirmed the God centered ness of Marriage as developed by the Jews because we kept it as Christians..Stamp of approval sort of thing.

I often notice that when men make fun of unattractive women they are usually not a great catch themselves.. "Dude..Have you looked into a mirror lately?"

You probably answered the question. The less pretty guys are often the one mating with the less pretty females. They probably spend their early years mocking them then after making their way through the sexual wasteland of their teenaged and early-20 years take what they can get.

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd personally beware of phrasing it this way. If the Jews got a handle on pagan religious practices and ideas regarding sex (which would otherwise be very attractive to human beings) by limiting it within a very particular context and cloaking it in an alternative "God-language", then is it really God's morality or the Jews' morality? If it is the latter, then it's just another cultural/religious variation out of several. If, however, it is the former, then it is applicable across the board to all humans who were created by God (i.e., all).

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

I understand the sexual preference that generated this variation:

But what sexual preference generated this variation:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

We believe that up until the coming of the Messiah that both the Jewish Prophets and the Law were God inspired. We just look back at most things through the lens of Christs coming. We affirmed the God centered ness of Marriage as developed by the Jews because we kept it as Christians..Stamp of approval sort of thing.

I often notice that when men make fun of unattractive women they are usually not a great catch themselves.. "Dude..Have you looked into a mirror lately?"

You probably answered the question. The less pretty guys are often the one mating with the less pretty females. They probably spend their early years mocking them then after making their way through the sexual wasteland of their teenaged and early-20 years take what they can get.

Not always.. I had two friends who worked at Booze Hamilton ( same company as Snowden) who shared a small office..She was a great beauty. Shock of long dark hair, busty.. gorgeous..head turner.. He looked like a pig. A more physically unattractive man would be hard to find. BUT..He was funny, and kind and smart and.....funny..and had a good job and a good education..She fell hard for him and they got married.. His parents couldn't believe it.. His friends couldn't believe it.. Women are often better people than men.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

My wife is far better looking than I am. I attribute it to sheer tenacity on my part. I asked her out about 8 times before she finally gave me a shot. It was senior year of college, I'm pretty sure she was just getting desperate. Never underestimate good timing.

Do you think there is money available for Scientits to try to prove a politically incorrect theory that does not conform to the current Gay Agenda?... I think it would be next to impossable.. Credible studies are very expensive.. Would NIH fund such a thing?.. Certainly not.. How about one the great Universities? There would be riots if it was found out...

I don't buy it, man. Experts from a variety of fields are trying to understand why some people are homosexuals when most are not. What are the underlying causes? Is it all nature, or all nurture, or some combination of the two? That kind of thing. Anyway, what 'politically incorrect' theory do you feel needs proving? That homosexuals are just hellbound God-spiters?

Anyone lookig for the Hetero gene? And how come Homnosexuality is not to be overcome and is hardwired but Hetero sexuality is still just a desire? Don't we hear all the time form the Gay Movement that the truth is that Hetero's are really all bi sexual..It's a matter of choice for us..but not for them..They have a Gene that forces them. But the rest of us don't.. Lab results to follow.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're going on about with this.

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

Sex, which is the most powerful human desire next to food ( usually) was also all wrapped up with religion.

That is exactly why the Jews got a handle on the matter and contained sexual desire within what they understood was a God-Pleasing context, one man and one woman. Pagans and heathens certainly allowed all kinds of sexual practices. We don't. Sex is no longer used within worship. But stay tuned..That is next I bet.

I think I know what you're saying, but I'd personally beware of phrasing it this way. If the Jews got a handle on pagan religious practices and ideas regarding sex (which would otherwise be very attractive to human beings) by limiting it within a very particular context and cloaking it in an alternative "God-language", then is it really God's morality or the Jews' morality? If it is the latter, then it's just another cultural/religious variation out of several. If, however, it is the former, then it is applicable across the board to all humans who were created by God (i.e., all).

Actually, there is extraordinarily little variation within the human genome. We are all essentially the same and even descend from the exact same ancestors... The variation that you observe is just the result of climatic winnowing of traits ( Blacker..Whiter..Stockier , Taller etc) and often based on sexual preference..

I understand the sexual preference that generated this variation:

But what sexual preference generated this variation:

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

We believe that up until the coming of the Messiah that both the Jewish Prophets and the Law were God inspired. We just look back at most things through the lens of Christs coming. We affirmed the God centered ness of Marriage as developed by the Jews because we kept it as Christians..Stamp of approval sort of thing.

I often notice that when men make fun of unattractive women they are usually not a great catch themselves.. "Dude..Have you looked into a mirror lately?"

You probably answered the question. The less pretty guys are often the one mating with the less pretty females. They probably spend their early years mocking them then after making their way through the sexual wasteland of their teenaged and early-20 years take what they can get.

Not always.. I had two friends who worked at Booze Hamilton ( same company as Snowden) who shared a small office..She was a great beauty. Shock of long dark hair, busty.. gorgeous..head turner.. He looked like a pig. A more physically unattractive man would be hard to find. BUT..He was funny, and kind and smart and.....funny..and had a good job and a good education..She fell hard for him and they got married.. His parents couldn't believe it.. His friends couldn't believe it.. Women are often better people than men.

I'm not sure if I would go that far. It's just that charisma of some variety is usually more important for a man and looks for a woman. A guy can be a regular Bryan Gosling lookalike and if he has no confidence he's probably toast.

I'm just going to point out that you guys are all making me lol very hard with the "natural" and "unnatural" arguments in regards to homosexuality. "Natural" and "unnatural" are imaginary, arbitrary, manmade terms with no real basis in reality. Technically anything that happens is natural. If a person is "born gay" because of some chemical imbalance while they were brewing in their mother's womb, or if post-natal circumstances and/or psychology led to their homosexual attraction, either way, it is all "natural"--the natural consequence (s) of the preliminary events. It's simple cause-and-effect that governs the world; anything that occurs is natural because it has a cause and it is merely the natural effect or consequence of that cause. Labeling some things "natural" and other "unnatural" is really fallacious and quite frankly, it makes no sense. It's like trying to tell nature what it is and what it is not. I find it similar to the same intellectual butchery and closed-mindedness of the atheists who disregard any phenomena simply because it does not fit in with their pretty empirical view of the world. But the truth of the matter is, crap happens, nature never ceases to surprise us, and we are in no position to tell it what it can't and can't do. Anything that happens is "natural" because of cause-and-effect.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

I assume that this website was speaking of the Ancient Egyptian tomb of Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. I don't have much information on it but the homosexual claim has been contested that these were twins, not homosexual lovers.

I would venture to claim that more of the examples cited from this website is based on limited research and questionable intellectual honesty.

Drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice based on these studies is ignorance at best.

Quote

I think I can safely call that a drastic over-statement. No, these little summaries of scientific studies do not essentially prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. But as the studies continue, and their findings accumulate, the fact that homosexuality is largely predetermined gains more and more evidential support.

It only proves that there are studies being done to try and create a causal relationship. Unless scientific studies address divine providence - which no study ever will - then there will always be reasonable doubt. There will always be a possibility that the collective proof intentionally excluded divinity and spirituality to color the result.

Quote

There is a plethora of data out there for your perusal, if you wish to pursue this issue on your own. However, I have spent hours of time posting scientific findings around here before, only to have the findings dismissed as 'diabolical' or 'propaganda' or what have you (because they contradicted some church father or another, or one's own long-held, cherished, and unsupported beliefs).

As there is a plethora of counter evidence against homosexuality. Yet there is a double standard here. Evidence against homosexuality will always be considered bigoted. Therefore, this evidence is automatically dismissed.

Quote

Agreed, that would be an absurd conclusion to arrive at based on these findings. And that is not at all what is being suggested. What it does do is add to "a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born." Come on, people! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

What it does is add to is the growing census, not the actual evidence of genetic predilection. The popular majority wins, not veracity.

Quote

I wouldn't say there is anything necessarily 'diaboloc' about the ancient fathers having a limited understanding of such issues as biology, genetics, epigenetics, and so on. It is good - very good - to know that with science, we can learn more about ourselves and gain a greater, clearer, and more comprehensive and accurate understanding of how things work.

Have you considered that it is science that has a limited understanding, not the ancient fathers? The ancient father were guided by the Holy Spirit and spoke of divine realities. Science intentionally excludes the possibility of a non-earthly reality. When conflict arises between what the fathers said and post-modern science, I'd place my bet the Church and the ancient fathers.

Labeling some things "natural" and other "unnatural" is really fallacious and quite frankly, it makes no sense. It's like trying to tell nature what it is and what it is not. I find it similar to the same intellectual butchery and closed-mindedness of the atheists who disregard any phenomena simply because it does not fit in with their pretty empirical view of the world. But the truth of the matter is, crap happens, nature never ceases to surprise us, and we are in no position to tell it what it can't and can't do. Anything that happens is "natural" because of cause-and-effect.

Interesting interjection, but who said anything along the lines of "natural" or "unnatural"? Did I miss something?

Glad we could amuse you, though!

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

As there is a plethora of counter evidence against homosexuality. Yet there is a double standard here. Evidence against homosexuality will always be considered bigoted. Therefore, this evidence is automatically dismissed.

What on earth do you mean by evidence that is against homosexuality? Seriously, trying to understand how or why something occurs has nothing to do with being for or against anything. Anyway, if by chance you mean that there is evidence that same-sex attraction is a choice (and only a choice), I'd be interested in seeing what you have.

Have you considered that it is science that has a limited understanding, not the ancient fathers?

Yes, of course science has a limited understanding, if you want to put it like that. Really, it is just a methodology for we humans to gain greater and more accurate insights into how things in the world work. It is self-correcting by it's very nature, so will never have a "final answer" on things, as if we were dealing with math or trivia questions. Understanding grows with the accumulation of evidence. And as a method of knowing, it has more than proven its effectiveness in dealing with the world.

The ancient father were guided by the Holy Spirit and spoke of divine realities. Science intentionally excludes the possibility of a non-earthly reality. When conflict arises between what the fathers said and post-modern science, I'd place my bet the Church and the ancient fathers.

Yet each ancient father was a human being, limited by his created nature, not to mention his position in history and his cultural paradigm, and was neither omniscient nor infallible. And anyway - and I ask this sincerely - where do the ancient fathers say anything about same-sex attraction being a choice or not?

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 04:53:01 PM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

I'm just going to point out that you guys are all making me lol very hard with the "natural" and "unnatural" arguments in regards to homosexuality. "Natural" and "unnatural" are imaginary, arbitrary, manmade terms with no real basis in reality. Technically anything that happens is natural. If a person is "born gay" because of some chemical imbalance while they were brewing in their mother's womb, or if post-natal circumstances and/or psychology led to their homosexual attraction, either way, it is all "natural"--the natural consequence (s) of the preliminary events. It's simple cause-and-effect that governs the world; anything that occurs is natural because it has a cause and it is merely the natural effect or consequence of that cause. Labeling some things "natural" and other "unnatural" is really fallacious and quite frankly, it makes no sense. It's like trying to tell nature what it is and what it is not. I find it similar to the same intellectual butchery and closed-mindedness of the atheists who disregard any phenomena simply because it does not fit in with their pretty empirical view of the world. But the truth of the matter is, crap happens, nature never ceases to surprise us, and we are in no position to tell it what it can't and can't do. Anything that happens is "natural" because of cause-and-effect.

It may well be that "natural" and "unnatural" are not the best words for this. After all, disease is "natural", but it's not a good thing. How about "normal" and "abnormal" instead?

I've found it to be a bit of a mixed bag. There is a tendency to exaggeration, especially in headlines and opening blurbs, but hasn't it always been that way? And obviously some articles are better than others. For example, from a recent Post Gazette article titled Pope hints at change on remarriage, warns against judging gays:

"He is saying things that the church has already said, but he is saying them in ways that people can understand," said Bishop David Zubik of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. "Pope John Paul II was a philosopher. Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian. Pope Francis is a pastor. ... He tells us that you have to know your people, you have to know what their struggles are."

Not sure about that Pope JP2 being a philosopher thing (??), but anyway...

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 07:22:55 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

If I didn't come to this forum it would literally take up about 2 seconds of my day. I would glance over a couple headlines of news stories mentioning it--stories which I almost certainly wouldn't read--and that'd be about it.

Not sure why the difference here, for me or anyone else.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 07:54:52 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Not sure about that Pope JP2 being a philosopher thing (??), but anyway...

Osoba i czyn was even translated into Romanian...

I have no idea what this means, on several levels...

* Osoba is actually "person". It's the sort of thing that would fit well into one of Krotok's threads:

Quote from: John Paul II, Love and Responsibility

No one else can want for me. No one can substitute his act of will for mine. It does sometimes happen that someone very much wants me to want what he wants. This is the moment when the impassable frontier between him and me, which is drawn by free will, becomes most obvious. I may not want that which he wants me to want - and in this precisely I am incommunicabilis. I am, and I must be, independent in my actions. All human relationships are posited on this fact.

"New York, NY––During an interview given while walking from his airplane arriving from Brazil to the 1983 Ford Escort awaiting to take him to the Vatican, His Holiness Pope Francis declared the new ex-cathedra Catholic dogma that all members of the Catholic Church must become homosexual,"

"New York, NY––During an interview given while walking from his airplane arriving from Brazil to the 1983 Ford Escort awaiting to take him to the Vatican, His Holiness Pope Francis declared the new ex-cathedra Catholic dogma that all members of the Catholic Church must become homosexual,"

I think there's a bit of miscommunication here... I have no idea what he taught that could be considered philosophical, but the problem is not the "philosophical" part, but rather my "I have no idea" part. For all I know he was the world's greatest philosopher ever. My problem isn't that I don't think he's worthy, or is a particular type... my problem is that I am completely unfamiliar with anything he said that might be philosophical. Almost everything I know of him was related to theology, and usually very pastoral and popular-level stuff. So is 'Love and Reponsibility' a philosophical book then?

EDIT--Papist, ah, ok, thanks

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 09:42:25 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

I think there's a bit of miscommunication here... I have no idea what he taught that could be considered philosophical, but the problem is not the "philosophical" part, but rather my "I have no idea" part. For all I know he was the world's greatest philosopher ever. My problem isn't that I don't think he's worthy, or is a particular type... my problem is that I am completely unfamiliar with anything he said that might be philosophical. Almost everything I know of him was related to theology, and usually very pastoral and popular-level stuff. So is 'Love and Reponsibility' a philosophical book then?

EDIT--Papist, ah, ok, thanks

Also, as Pope, he wrote the encyclical Fides et ratio, which has quite a few philosophical implications. If you ever have the time, take a look. It's an interesting read.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2013, 09:55:54 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Is it true that in some cases, (future) priests in the Orthodox Church are required to marry before ordination?

No they are NOT required but if they do chose to marry it must happen prior to ordination. A Bishop can not be married at his elevation, ie if as priest, his wife passed away, then and only then can be considered a candidate for Bishop. Most Bishops are from the ranks of the celibate clergy. The question: What if the priest has children could he still be a candidate for Bishop? Im not sure but this would be a very rare occurrence if it happens at all.

Everything the Pope said is perfectly in alignment with traditional Catholic teaching as far as I understand it. However what I do not understand is how the media is blowing this way out of proportion, making the Pope seem more "liberal and progressive" when he's not at all. Even worse is that many among the LGBT community online are also reading his words out of context, causing them to feel that the Pope is shifting the Catholic Church's stance on these issues when he is not doing so.

I get the "jist" of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in regards to homosexuality, etc. from their Catechism. I understand that both the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches view homosexual acts to be sinful in nature and that those with same sex attraction are called to a life of celibacy.

Which brings an outsider to the next point, in a world where sexuality and relationships are marketed as "the norm". How does a celibate person find happiness and meaning?

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

It's a good a example of tollerance and understanding of others, but for a Christian, let alone a pope, I find these words way too superficial. The Catholic Church seems to have no real fiber, it preaches that everything is ok, that all religions are acceptable, yet they themselves cling to the most authoritative and scary dogmas (heaven and hell included). It's rather insane, but not saying this against the people, just the phenomenon.

Thanks! I was going to say, what exactly is a correct Biblical understanding of "homosexual"? I think that needs to continually be made clear in every discussion about homosexuality, especially when speaking with the unbelieving media/public who seem to always be looking for some kind of loop hole or justification. I get the feeling that St. Paul's definition of homosexual was different than our modern definition. I don't think his definition had anything to do with flamboyancy or a penchant for interior design.

Is it true that in some cases, (future) priests in the Orthodox Church are required to marry before ordination?

No they are NOT required but if they do chose to marry it must happen prior to ordination. A Bishop can not be married at his elevation, ie if as priest, his wife passed away, then and only then can be considered a candidate for Bishop. Most Bishops are from the ranks of the celibate clergy. The question: What if the priest has children could he still be a candidate for Bishop? Im not sure but this would be a very rare occurrence if it happens at all.

To chase this rabbit trail a bit, How does Orthodoxy explain passages like 1 Timothy 3 where it gives the qualifications for overseers and deacons to be "the husband of one wife... manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity." Maybe the key is "overseers and deacons", Protestants have generally took this passage to apply to all church leadership- hence, why we allow married clergy. Does Orthodoxy have different standards of qualifications for different offices of leadership? Is there Scriptural support for it?

About what the Pope said.He said he is aware that there are people with sexual disoreintation and if they want to seek The Lord then who is he to Judge... he went on to say all homosexual acts are sins.I think I agree with him.

He said the church had already pronounced itself on the issue and that it was not up to him to judge individual people.

That's standard Christian teaching on every form of sin.

1. Something is a sin;2. We are not to judge the sinner;

What's new there? People are talking about it as if he was implying that homossexuality is not a sin. That's not what he said at all. He said he subscribes and believes what the church teaches about it, but we are not to judge people because of that.

Thanks! I was going to say, what exactly is a correct Biblical understanding of "homosexual"? I think that needs to continually be made clear in every discussion about homosexuality, especially when speaking with the unbelieving media/public who seem to always be looking for some kind of loop hole or justification.

It's my conviction there is no such thing as a "biblical understanding of homosexuality". The modern idea of a homosexual is a 19th century late Victorian creation. The Greco-Roman world tended to believe homosexual interest was caused by excessive sexual desire, perhaps fitting with Paul's description in Romans 1- but few educated people today would recognize that as homosexuality in the sense that most people understand it- a lifelong attraction exclusively to males.

Do you think there is money available for Scientits to try to prove a politically incorrect theory that does not conform to the current Gay Agenda?... I think it would be next to impossable.. Credible studies are very expensive.. Would NIH fund such a thing?.. Certainly not.. How about one the great Universities? There would be riots if it was found out...

I don't buy it, man. Experts from a variety of fields are trying to understand why some people are homosexuals when most are not. What are the underlying causes? Is it all nature, or all nurture, or some combination of the two? That kind of thing. Anyway, what 'politically incorrect' theory do you feel needs proving? That homosexuals are just hellbound God-spiters?

Anyone lookig for the Hetero gene? And how come Homnosexuality is not to be overcome and is hardwired but Hetero sexuality is still just a desire? Don't we hear all the time form the Gay Movement that the truth is that Hetero's are really all bi sexual..It's a matter of choice for us..but not for them..They have a Gene that forces them. But the rest of us don't.. Lab results to follow.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're going on about with this.

My main point is that when there is a big hot button social issue or economic interests be careful of the "Science" that follows.. For example I know more about the topic Nutrition and the politics that surround it so let me draw an example from there to illustrate my point.

Everyone knows saturated fat is bad for you and causes heart disease. Most any doctor will follow that script if you ask him about it, If you question that assumption you will probably be told that there has been study after study after study that proves it...Except it isnt true. There really is no credible evidence and the studies that underpin that theory are laughably bogus. But the Lipid- heart ( fat is bad) theory got pushed. There were economic and social reasons that corrupted the Science..

Same here.

Let my try to think off the top of my head possible studies that go against the agenda and would be career enders.

The American Physiological Association declared some years ago that Homosexuality was not a physiologically abnormal and that Physiologists should no longer try to treat homosexuality but only help a suffering person adjust.

How about a meta analysis of that recommendation ( all studies taken together to find trends and confirm validity of conclusions). Do you think a critic can really look at all the data and determine why that recommendation was made and maybe show it had no real scientific basis or that the recommendation was due to political pressure? I bet not.

How about a study of which treatments are most successful in changing sexual orientation? Career ender I bet.

How about looking for a Gay Gene as a genetic defect rather than proof Gay is normal... You could never approach the subject from that angle. It is politically incorrect. If you were part of a University, there would be demonstrations and your life would be in danger..

Nope, only one side of the story can be studied/funded right now..

« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 09:39:56 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Oh and one more point.. The entire basic assumption of same sex attraction my be wrong and the Science that follows only confirms an erroneous hypothesis..

The assumption is that being Gay in hard wired into you. You are a "Type" of person. You are not a "Man" but a "Gay Man". Genetic confirmation to follow.

But what if homosexuality is really a phase and not a Type of being? Nothing makes a Gay person more defensive ( I have found) than someone switching orientation at some point in their life because that implies either choice or at least confounds the "third type of person" basic assumption.

For example, I have a good female friend who was married for many years and had two kids. He cheated, they got divorced Yada yada.

Then she took up with another woman also who had young kids and they moved in together. I asked her if she was always lesbian or unhappy sexually when she was married..Not in the least..Things change...This is right for her now...at this phase in her life.

When I told the story to a Gay relative, he got very defensive. He said it couldn't be, she must have been Gay all along.

I know several people who were Gay and now they are not, who were straight and now they are Gay..or were then weren't then are again then changed again.

An erroneous basic assumption can send Science down a path that is in reality meaningless, yet convincing.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Do you think there is money available for Scientits to try to prove a politically incorrect theory that does not conform to the current Gay Agenda?... I think it would be next to impossable.. Credible studies are very expensive.. Would NIH fund such a thing?.. Certainly not.. How about one the great Universities? There would be riots if it was found out...

I don't buy it, man. Experts from a variety of fields are trying to understand why some people are homosexuals when most are not. What are the underlying causes? Is it all nature, or all nurture, or some combination of the two? That kind of thing. Anyway, what 'politically incorrect' theory do you feel needs proving? That homosexuals are just hellbound God-spiters?

Anyone lookig for the Hetero gene? And how come Homnosexuality is not to be overcome and is hardwired but Hetero sexuality is still just a desire? Don't we hear all the time form the Gay Movement that the truth is that Hetero's are really all bi sexual..It's a matter of choice for us..but not for them..They have a Gene that forces them. But the rest of us don't.. Lab results to follow.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're going on about with this.

My main point is that when there is a big hot button social issue or economic interests be careful of the "Science" that follows.. For example I know more about the topic Nutrition and the politics that surround it so let me draw an example from there to illustrate my point.

Everyone knows saturated fat is bad for you and causes heart disease. Most any doctor will follow that script if you ask him about it, If you question that assumption you will probably be told that there has been study after study after study that proves it...Except it isn't true. There really is no credible evidence and the studies that underpin that theory are laughably bogus. But the Lipid- heart ( fat is bad) theory got pushed. There were economic and social reasons that corrupted the Science..

Same here.

Let my try to think off the top of my head possible studies that go against the agenda and would be career enders.

The American Physiological Association declared some years ago that Homosexuality was not a physiologically abnormal and that Physiologists should no longer try to treat homosexuality but only help a suffering person adjust.

How about a meta analysis of that recommendation ( all studies taken together to find trends and confirm validity of conclusions). Do you think a critic can really look at all the data and determine why that recommendation was made and maybe show it had no real scientific basis or that the recommendation was due to political pressure? I bet not.

How about a study of which treatments are most successful in changing sexual orientation? Career ender I bet.

How about looking for a Gay Gene as a genetic defect rather than proof Gay is normal... You could never approach the subject from that angle. It is politically incorrect. If you were part of a University, there would be demonstrations and your life would be in danger..

Everything the Pope said is perfectly in alignment with traditional Catholic teaching as far as I understand it. However what I do not understand is how the media is blowing this way out of proportion, making the Pope seem more "liberal and progressive" when he's not at all. Even worse is that many among the LGBT community online are also reading his words out of context, causing them to feel that the Pope is shifting the Catholic Church's stance on these issues when he is not doing so.

I get the "jist" of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches in regards to homosexuality, etc. from their Catechism. I understand that both the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches view homosexual acts to be sinful in nature and that those with same sex attraction are called to a life of celibacy.

Which brings an outsider to the next point, in a world where sexuality and relationships are marketed as "the norm". How does a celibate person find happiness and meaning?

Happiness is not just doing whatever one wants, but bringing one's passions under the control of reason, so that they are orderd to their proper end. In this way, the person is whole, not at war with himself, but living in quiet peace.

Modern society would have us believe that happiness is doing what we want, when we want to.

People need to read the Repulic. As the old man in the Chronicles of Narnia says, "What are they teaching these days? It's all in Plato! It's all in Plato."

« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 03:45:05 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

...Which brings an outsider to the next point, in a world where sexuality and relationships are marketed as "the norm". How does a celibate person find happiness and meaning?

This sort of implies that romantic relationships and sexuality are -the element- that leads to happiness and meaning for people. I don't believe that is true for even the non-believer.

Think of an athlete...is it his sport that gives his life meaning, or the fact he has a relationship? Or an artist? or a scholar.....

But didnt Sigmund Freud teach that everything is done with sex as the motive?

Why do you think I post on oc.net? For sex, of course.

Probably the most interesting and informative post in this thread subforum forum board. You have totally stumped me and I have nothing more to say by way of response. (Some may be thanking God for that! )

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

...Which brings an outsider to the next point, in a world where sexuality and relationships are marketed as "the norm". How does a celibate person find happiness and meaning?

This sort of implies that romantic relationships and sexuality are -the element- that leads to happiness and meaning for people. I don't believe that is true for even the non-believer.

Think of an athlete...is it his sport that gives his life meaning, or the fact he has a relationship? Or an artist? or a scholar.....

But didnt Sigmund Freud teach that everything is done with sex as the motive?

Why do you think I post on oc.net? For sex, of course.

Probably the most interesting and informative post in this thread subforum forum board. You have totally stumped me and I have nothing more to say by way of response. (Some may be thanking God for that! )

That is probably best. I shake my head and half the things I post as well.

I know that I'm a little late to the party on this topic, but has anyone posted what Pope Francis actually said?

In response to a question about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican he said:

"There is so much being written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican yet who has “gay” written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.”

I know that I'm a little late to the party on this topic, but has anyone posted what Pope Francis actually said?

In response to a question about a "gay lobby" in the Vatican he said:

"There is so much being written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican yet who has “gay” written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.”

The correct term the Church properly uses is Homosexual, not the soft-soaped, watered down, PC word "gay" that the militant homosexuals and cultural marxists use and the pope so conveniently employs to soften the blow of just what the reality is of what we're dealing with here. This is just another example of where this guy is coming from, I believe that he is placating a disproportion number in the clergy that are infected with this "intrinsic disorder" and wants to stay in their good graces to keep the peace during his the tenure of his papacy and not to appear "uncharitable" to the sexual deviants lurking about parishes throughout the globe.

Anyway, the Church is very clear on Homosexuality and the treatment of homosexuals;Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Seems while Francis is out there with his placating homosexuals, dancing bishops and refusing certain papal "privliges"," Mr. Humility" goes about with an iron fist crushing something so terrifying as the TLM.....

While they're out there shutting down parishes and razing churches because no one is interested in the New age Mass these days , those out there desperately holding on to the foundations of Tradition, the bedrock of the Church are attempting to be muzzeled by Mr.Nice Guy on the Chair of Peter.

IMPORTANT: Pope Francis severely restricts the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass, imposes the Novus Ordo on all their priestsUPDATE: FULL TEXT OF THE DECREE that abrogates Summorum for the FFI

Thanks! I was going to say, what exactly is a correct Biblical understanding of "homosexual"? I think that needs to continually be made clear in every discussion about homosexuality, especially when speaking with the unbelieving media/public who seem to always be looking for some kind of loop hole or justification.

It's my conviction there is no such thing as a "biblical understanding of homosexuality". The modern idea of a homosexual is a 19th century late Victorian creation. The Greco-Roman world tended to believe homosexual interest was caused by excessive sexual desire, perhaps fitting with Paul's description in Romans 1- but few educated people today would recognize that as homosexuality in the sense that most people understand it- a lifelong attraction exclusively to males.

Agreed. And I think the reason we are understanding it this way today is because science has "proven" the "gay gene". So people think being gay is not just an act, but an identity, but this isn't what Scripture teaches. I realize the Pope's statement wasn't presented as a theological defense, but since he put that out there, I think he needs to explain this more. I am not comfortable with his allowing gays as priests unless, and only unless, they have their desires under total submission to Christ and are showing consisent victory in rejecting those temptations. If they are successful in this area of their life, then I wouldn't call them "gay priests", that's not their identity. They are priests who have battled and have won against their sin. If they are not fighting their sinful nature effectively, how can they teach their parishioners to do the same? I think they should not judge, welcome them with open arms, allow them to seek God and participate in worship, but not to leave them in their sin and certainly not placing them in leadership until they have proven they are fully trusting and trying to obey Christ in everything.

Do you think there is money available for Scientits to try to prove a politically incorrect theory that does not conform to the current Gay Agenda?... I think it would be next to impossable.. Credible studies are very expensive.. Would NIH fund such a thing?.. Certainly not.. How about one the great Universities? There would be riots if it was found out...

I don't buy it, man. Experts from a variety of fields are trying to understand why some people are homosexuals when most are not. What are the underlying causes? Is it all nature, or all nurture, or some combination of the two? That kind of thing. Anyway, what 'politically incorrect' theory do you feel needs proving? That homosexuals are just hellbound God-spiters?

Anyone lookig for the Hetero gene? And how come Homnosexuality is not to be overcome and is hardwired but Hetero sexuality is still just a desire? Don't we hear all the time form the Gay Movement that the truth is that Hetero's are really all bi sexual..It's a matter of choice for us..but not for them..They have a Gene that forces them. But the rest of us don't.. Lab results to follow.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're going on about with this.

My main point is that when there is a big hot button social issue or economic interests be careful of the "Science" that follows.. For example I know more about the topic Nutrition and the politics that surround it so let me draw an example from there to illustrate my point.

Everyone knows saturated fat is bad for you and causes heart disease. Most any doctor will follow that script if you ask him about it, If you question that assumption you will probably be told that there has been study after study after study that proves it...Except it isnt true. There really is no credible evidence and the studies that underpin that theory are laughably bogus. But the Lipid- heart ( fat is bad) theory got pushed. There were economic and social reasons that corrupted the Science..

Same here.

Let my try to think off the top of my head possible studies that go against the agenda and would be career enders.

The American Physiological Association declared some years ago that Homosexuality was not a physiologically abnormal and that Physiologists should no longer try to treat homosexuality but only help a suffering person adjust.

How about a meta analysis of that recommendation ( all studies taken together to find trends and confirm validity of conclusions). Do you think a critic can really look at all the data and determine why that recommendation was made and maybe show it had no real scientific basis or that the recommendation was due to political pressure? I bet not.

How about a study of which treatments are most successful in changing sexual orientation? Career ender I bet.

How about looking for a Gay Gene as a genetic defect rather than proof Gay is normal... You could never approach the subject from that angle. It is politically incorrect. If you were part of a University, there would be demonstrations and your life would be in danger..

Nope, only one side of the story can be studied/funded right now..

I know! Let's just accept science and use science when it benefits us but doesn't threaten cherished beliefs based on religious texts, and then throw out science as "theory" or as guided by a diabolic and/or political agenda whenever it does contradict said beliefs. Then everyone can be happy!

Look, more and more scientific studies are demonstrating that there are underlying reasons - both genetic and environmental - for gayness. Science would not be doing its job if it didn't look further into these findings. If these findings didn't continually show up in studies, then we could dismiss the notion that there are any underlying causes to homosexuality. But they do show up. And so people continue to study and investigate them further. The thing is, I see no good reason aside from religious ones to try to look for reasons that homosexuality is bad or wrong or sinful. That kind of search would be based on a religious desire to defend one's beliefs/religious dogmas, not on a scientific desire to simply understand the causes of homosexuality.

Quote

How about a study of which treatments are most successful in changing sexual orientation? Career ender I bet.

When studies evaluate the success of treatments in changing sexual orientation are done, the successes and failures must both be acknowledged and investigated. This would only be a "career ender", I bet, if someone was tweaking or cherry picking data to support a religious conviction. Alas, this happens a lot, and you're right, while it might sell them a lot of books, it won't protect their "scientific" career from crumbling. Go ahead and research reparative therapy to your heart's content, though. I think you'll find that, aside from Christian supporters of the "therapy", it is unanimously rejected as being both ineffective and harmful in the long run (even if there are a handful of "success stories").

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

Thanks! I was going to say, what exactly is a correct Biblical understanding of "homosexual"? I think that needs to continually be made clear in every discussion about homosexuality, especially when speaking with the unbelieving media/public who seem to always be looking for some kind of loop hole or justification.

It's my conviction there is no such thing as a "biblical understanding of homosexuality". The modern idea of a homosexual is a 19th century late Victorian creation. The Greco-Roman world tended to believe homosexual interest was caused by excessive sexual desire, perhaps fitting with Paul's description in Romans 1- but few educated people today would recognize that as homosexuality in the sense that most people understand it- a lifelong attraction exclusively to males.

An astute observation, Daedelus1138! I think you are most likely correct about this.

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton

"Who am I?" asked himself, the Pope God's representative numero uno on planet earth!I think the Catholic church is now officially controled by Satan. Christians are murdered every day, priestes are kidnapped and slaughtered like a sheep, and the Pope celebrates a joyeful feast in one of the most sodomite places of the world:m Copacabana. We are in trouble!

"Who am I?" asked himself, the Pope God's representative numero uno on planet earth!I think the Catholic church is now officially controled by Satan. Christians are murdered every day, priestes are kidnapped and slaughtered like a sheep, and the Pope celebrates a joyeful feast in one of the most sodomite places of the world:m Copacabana. We are in trouble!

It's a good a example of tollerance and understanding of others, but for a Christian, let alone a pope, I find these words way too superficial. The Catholic Church seems to have no real fiber, it preaches that everything is ok, that all religions are acceptable, yet they themselves cling to the most authoritative and scary dogmas (heaven and hell included). It's rather insane, but not saying this against the people, just the phenomenon.

Christians should show no tolerance or understanding of others. Perhaps the pope should have ranted like some Romanian monks I see on the Internet ... I'm sure there are others too, but language barriers prevent me from receiving their wisdom

"Who am I?" asked himself, the Pope God's representative numero uno on planet earth!I think the Catholic church is now officially controled by Satan. Christians are murdered every day, priestes are kidnapped and slaughtered like a sheep, and the Pope celebrates a joyeful feast in one of the most sodomite places of the world:m Copacabana. We are in trouble!

Also, non-Christians are murdered every day, too.

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Copacabana is known to be inhabitted mostly by elderly people. The young and cool never move there and it's far from being a "sodomite" burrough.

It's a touristic area so you get all kinds of people there. It is very diversified.

Indeed, it's in Copacabana that we have the cathedral of the Polish Orthodox Church in Brazil who, along with the Serbians, are the only de facto missionary churches in the land.

There are still thefts there? Yeps, specially if you leave valuables on the sand. During night time you'll find prostitutes, both male and female in some streets and nightclubs? You bet. But of all things, a "sodomite" area it's not and it could not be, since it receives *all* kinds of tourists from all over the world.

"Who am I?" asked himself, the Pope God's representative numero uno on planet earth!I think the Catholic church is now officially controled by Satan. Christians are murdered every day, priestes are kidnapped and slaughtered like a sheep, and the Pope celebrates a joyeful feast in one of the most sodomite places of the world:m Copacabana. We are in trouble!